Diagnose the CLT
A team brings data every week, but most of the conversation explains why each class is different. What is preventing the team from moving forward?
The team is explaining the differences instead of figuring out what to do about them.
The team average rises from 76% to 84%. What would you want to know before calling the instructional change a success?
A higher average doesn’t tell you who improved or what actually got better.
A discussion keeps circling without reaching a decision. What is one move any team member could make to break the loop?
The team may need to stop and clarify exactly what decision it is trying to make.
Students perform poorly on a common assessment. The team wants to revise it before the next administration. When is that good assessment practice, and when is it lowering the bar?
Changing the assessment makes sense if the assessment is flawed. It doesn’t make sense just because students struggled.
A team makes thoughtful instructional decisions, but those decisions are frequently revisited or undone two weeks later. What might be happening beneath the surface?
The team may be agreeing in the moment without really committing to the decision.
One teacher’s students score substantially higher than the others. Before assuming the instruction was better, what else should the team rule out?
Higher scores can come from more than just better instruction.
A team reaches agreement very quickly on almost every issue. When should that become a concern rather than a sign of efficiency?
Quick agreement is only a problem if people are not really examining the issue.
One teacher’s approach consistently produces stronger results. Should the rest of the team now be expected to use it?
Strong results are worth studying, but that doesn’t automatically mean everyone should teach the same way.
A CLT is focused, organized, and data-driven. Yet year after year, student outcomes remain noticeably inconsistent across classrooms. Where would you investigate first?
The issue may be in how the team’s decisions are actually carried out in classrooms.
Teacher A’s students finish the unit with higher proficiency. Teacher B’s lowest-performing students show much greater growth. Which classroom shows stronger results?
You can’t call one stronger until you decide whether you care more about proficiency, growth, or both.
The team is split between two defensible instructional approaches. Both have evidence behind them, and neither side is persuading the other. What is the strongest next move?
Instead of forcing agreement, the team could test both approaches and compare the results.
One teacher regularly departs from the team’s agreed approach and gets strong results. Another follows the team plan closely but gets weaker results. Which situation should concern the CLT more?
Both situations deserve attention: one challenges the team’s agreements, and the other challenges whether those agreements are actually effective.